PAM, quarterstaff, shield and shillelagh cheese.

[Klorox]

I've seen this discussed multiple times in here. I can't say I like this combo, it doesn't make sense to me, but I understand it's RAW.

That being said, please help me understand how this works. Two questions:

1) Does the bonus action attack still do 1d4, or does it do 1d8 damage? I can see arguments either way.

2) Where is the user actually holding the quarterstaff? Since the bonus action attack is with the butt-end, according to PAM, does that mean the user is holding the quarterstaff in the middle (or 1/4 the way down)?

TIA

[Klorox]

Ok, third question:

3) if you combine it with booming blade or green-flame blade, how does that work, exactly?

Casting the cantrip has an attack as part of the spell component; can you still gain a bonus action attack if you're using one of these cantrips?

[JNAProductions]

Ok, third question:

3) if you combine it with booming blade or green-flame blade, how does that work, exactly?

Casting the cantrip has an attack as part of the spell component; can you still gain a bonus action attack if you're using one of these cantrips?

That I CAN answer. No, you do not. You are not using the Attack Action.

[Crgaston]

https://youtu.be/DBufHUNvEVo

[Crgaston]

https://youtu.be/DBufHUNvEVo

I understand there is no shield in this video, but there easily could be, held tightly to the body when attacking and deployed after ending the attack action and tucking the staff under your arm like a lance. Held like that, you could do a little bonus action swipe or poke easily.

[Theodoxus]

1) Per shillelagh, the weapon's damage die becomes a d8. Per PAM, the weapon's damage die for the bonus attack is a d4. Since the other polearms usable by PAM are d10, while the staff becomes a d8, I would say the feat overrides the cantrip and the bonus damage will always be a d4 regardless of source.

2) Having fought staff IRL, yeah, this combination doesn't work in reality. If you hold the staff by the middle in a one handed grip, neither the forward nor reverse strike (the bonus action) would deliver anything close to a damaging strike. I think shillelagh makes it more plausible, as you're using enhancement magic to bolster the strike - in fact, I'd probably rule that only by the use of shillelagh can you use PAM (in a one handed staff stance) - it'd be a feat/class tax I'm willing to compromise with.

That said, I guess a High Elf (or High Elf based Half-elf) Nature Cleric could get that combo started at first level, and add PAM at 4th... it's not full on Limburger, probably closer to a nice medium cheddar... Not that High Elves are overly pragmatic for clerics... and HElves losing their bonus skills to grab a cantrip isn't overly useful either... it's an adequate tax in my book.

3) See above.

[SharkForce]

1) jeremy crawford says d4: http://www.sageadvice.eu/2014/09/02/shillelagh-on-quarterstaff/

2) your guess is as good as mine. if you're going to allow it on the basis that it isn't particularly broken (and truthfully, it isn't really that powerful, just... kinda... hard to imagine), just try to ignore the fact that it doesn't really make sense at all.

3) not from the polearm master feat. casting a spell is not the attack action, even if the spell includes a melee weapon attack as part of it. you could, however, gain a bonus action attack from other sources (for example, by being a sufficiently high level eldritch knight). if you had the haste spell on you, you could also use the haste extra action to make an attack action, which would trigger your polearm master bonus action.

[the secret fire]

https://youtu.be/DBufHUNvEVo

I understand there is no shield in this video, but there easily could be, held tightly to the body when attacking and deployed after ending the attack action and tucking the staff under your arm like a lance. Held like that, you could do a little bonus action swipe or poke easily.

Ummm...no. It's an utterly implausible fighting style that would offer no leverage on the weapon whatsoever, and you'd be forced to hold your shield so far off to the side while doing your Donatello impression that it wouldn't be of any use in defense.

I do not share your rather generous credulity in this matter.

[Foxhound438]

1) as you say, can go either way. Each effect is a specific rule that overrides the general rule of "this weapon's damage die is a d6", but neither is "top dog" replacement effect.

2) I'd say about halfway down, and you swing it wildly like a regular club, and use the rebound to follow through with a backhand strike. Not really RL effective, but that's where suspension of disbelief comes in to save the day. It'd be kind of lame to say to one person they can't do a fairly mundane cool movie style maneuver because it's "not realistic" and then just smile and nod when the next guy says "WIIINGAARDIUM LEVIOSAAAA" and suddenly a giant squid falls from the blind eternities and starts beating up the enemy team.

[RickAllison]

1) as you say, can go either way. Each effect is a specific rule that overrides the general rule of "this weapon's damage die is a d6", but neither is "top dog" replacement effect.

2) I'd say about halfway down, and you swing it wildly like a regular club, and use the rebound to follow through with a backhand strike. Not really RL effective, but that's where suspension of disbelief comes in to save the day. It'd be kind of lame to say to one person they can't do a fairly mundane cool movie style maneuver because it's "not realistic" and then just smile and nod when the next guy says "WIIINGAARDIUM LEVIOSAAAA" and suddenly a giant squid falls from the blind eternities and starts beating up the enemy team.

*I am not allowed to waste game time trying to prove that summoning squid from the blind eternities is more realistic than said quarter staff techniques. Especially if I succeed.

[the secret fire]

That said, I guess a High Elf (or High Elf based Half-elf) Nature Cleric could get that combo started at first level, and add PAM at 4th... it's not full on Limburger, probably closer to a nice medium cheddar... Not that High Elves are overly pragmatic for clerics... and HElves losing their bonus skills to grab a cantrip isn't overly useful either... it's an adequate tax in my book.

You can do it with any race if you don't care about using an attack cantrip, which you shouldn't, as those conflict with PAM's bonus attack, anyway.

A Druid can also start doing the above at first level, though I think the really dangerous combination here is Tome Warlock/Paladin with Cha as the one stat to rule them all and an extra shot at landing a divine smite each round through PAM while also enjoying the defensive bonus of a shield. That's some stinky, french cheese right there.

[Herobizkit]

IIRC, there is precedent in the GURPS game system for allowing the use of a quarterstaff with the Sword skill, presumably by wielding it like a Bastard Sword (or a Longsword in 5e terms). In the case of PAM, perhaps the d4 can represent a Thrust/Poke with the staff versus a full-strength Swing?

[WereRabbitz]

Ok so i'm confused

So say...

Paladin 12
Bard 6
Fighter 2

Feats: Polearm Mastery (PAM), Stats, Stats, Sentinel
Fighting Style Duel & Protection
equipment: quarterstaff + Shield
Magical Secrets Grabs Shillelagh from Druid list and makes it use Charisma now
20 Charisma

Quarter staff does 1d8+2(duel style)+5(Charisma) for a 8-15 dmg range
PAM: Allows a bonus attack of 1d4 This would get +2 from Duel and +5 from Charisma making it 8-11 dmg range
Paladin 11 Improved Divine Smite gives 1d8dmg per swing

So you could be doing

Attack 1: 1d8+7 + 1D8 Radiant
Attack 2: 1d8+7 + 1D8 Radiant
Bonus Attack: 1d6+7 + 1d8 Radiant

Damage Range of 27-67dmg not including any spells or effects or Magical Weapons

+ Action Surge to do it again?

Is that correct?
all of this in Plate + Shield easily hitting over 20 AC & could have bonus damage or shield spell up at the same time.

[Rysto]

Action Surge doesn't give you a second bonus attack, and it comes online faster with Tomelock 3 rather than Lore Bard 6. Also, you could grab Shillelagh via Magic Initiate and use Strength as your attack stat (Shillelagh says that you may use your spellcasting stat, not that you must).

But yeah, one-handed quarterstaves with PAM are pretty ridiculous on a Paladin.

[WereRabbitz]

Action Surge doesn't give you a second bonus attack, and it comes online faster with Tomelock 3 rather than Lore Bard 6. Also, you could grab Shillelagh via Magic Initiate and use Strength as your attack stat (Shillelagh says that you may use your spellcasting stat, not that you must).

But yeah, one-handed quarterstaves with PAM are pretty ridiculous on a Paladin.

Yeah with tome lock your casting it as a ritual right so it takes 10mins?

Oops I was wrong "at-will" is very nice since it's a 1min duration it doens't specify like Magical Secrets though that it's a Bard Spell (Cha) instead of the normal druid (wis) spell though.

Action Surge & Magic Init work a little different see bold parts below.

Copied from PHB pg 72

Action Surge:
Starting at 2nd level, you can push yourself beyond your
normal limits for a moment. On your turn, you can take
one additional action on top o f your regular action and a
possible bonus action.
**I think this means you can have another bonus action I could be wrong**

Magic Initiate:
Choose a class: bard, cleric, druid, sorcerer, warlock, or
wizard. You learn two cantrips o f your choice from that
class’s spell list.
In addition, choose one 1st-level spell from that same
list. You learn that spell and can cast it at its lowest
level. Once you cast it, you must finish a long rest before
you can cast it again.
Your spellcasting ability for these spells depends
on the class you chose: Charisma for bard,
sorcerer, or warlock; Wisdom for cleric or druid: or
Intelligence for wizard.

Fairly sure Magic Initiate to get the cantrip makes you use WIS for attack/dmg

[Cybren]

You are indeed wrong. You get one extra action and 0 extra bonus actions from action surge.

[Klorox]

Ok so i'm confused

So say...

Paladin 12
Bard 6
Fighter 2

Feats: Polearm Mastery (PAM), Stats, Stats, Sentinel
Fighting Style Duel & Protection
equipment: quarterstaff + Shield
Magical Secrets Grabs Shillelagh from Druid list and makes it use Charisma now
20 Charisma

Quarter staff does 1d8+2(duel style)+5(Charisma) for a 8-15 dmg range
PAM: Allows a bonus attack of 1d4 This would get +2 from Duel and +5 from Charisma making it 8-11 dmg range
Paladin 11 Improved Divine Smite gives 1d8dmg per swing

So you could be doing

Attack 1: 1d8+7 + 1D8 Radiant
Attack 2: 1d8+7 + 1D8 Radiant
Bonus Attack: 1d6+7 + 1d8 Radiant

Damage Range of 27-67dmg not including any spells or effects or Magical Weapons

+ Action Surge to do it again?

Is that correct?
all of this in Plate + Shield easily hitting over 20 AC & could have bonus damage or shield spell up at the same time.
I think the bonus action attack is 1d4.

How are you getting CHA damage added to each attack?

The problem with heavy armor is it takes away from the SAD aspect of shillelagh. I suppose the alternative is medium armor, which requires a 14 DEX for best results, so perhaps a 15 STR is a better investment.

[Joe the Rat]

At 20th level? yeah (with Action Surge corrections). Fighter 20 with the same feats, + magic Initiate Druid for Shill and using Strength 20 (Shillelagh says you can use, not must use) is dropping 4x 1d8+7 magic bludgeoning, with a 1d4+7 bonus option... and another 4x attack sequence twice per short rest. Plus whatever other shenanigans you are up to as a fighter (EK can shield, Battlemaster can Maneuver, Champion can supercrit and grab an extra AC pip). Plus your stick schtick can be starting at 1 (VHuman PAM) and build from there.

Is Bard just to get to Cha-Shill for monostat, or do you want the overall spell slots? Tomelock3 can get you Challelagh, netting 4th spells and slots, cleansing touch, and Oath features for Pal 15.

[Rysto]

Fairly sure Magic Initiate to get the cantrip makes you use WIS for attack/dmg

It doesn't make you use WIS. It allows you to use WIS instead of STR. Getting a WIS-based Shillelagh is a trade-off. It allows you to get the d8 for the quarterstaff without a 3-level dip. However, as I type that, it occurs to me that spending a feat for +1 damage per hit, when it consumes your first BA (which costs you the damage you could have done with the PAM BA attack), it's not worth it. At least the 3-level dip has some other nice benefits that complement the Paladin class nicely.


How are you getting CHA damage added to each attack?

Er, from Shillelagh?

[tieren]

For a gnome pally/lock, riding a medium mount I picture using the shillelagh-QS and shield kind of like a larger rider would a shield and lance. I'd charge forward and poke with it, if I had extra attack, maybe then trying to swing it, and if I had PAM (probably won't have enough ASI's to take) I'd picturing swinging it up and hitting with the butt end that was previously in my arm pit.

Picturing Sir Didymus from the labyrinth movie.

[gkathellar]

Ummm...no. It's an utterly implausible fighting style that would offer no leverage on the weapon whatsoever, and you'd be forced to hold your shield so far off to the side while doing your Donatello impression that it wouldn't be of any use in defense.

I do not share your rather generous credulity in this matter.

In an amusing twist, the absolute worst thing would be if you ran into someone else using a shield, who would literally just hold it in the way of your rotation and laugh when the staff went flying out of your hand.

[R.Shackleford]

When I ask myself "should a d&d character be able to do that physically" I think...

"Is this something that I could imagine Jackie Chan doing" then the answer is yes.

"Is this something I want to see Jackie Chan doing" then the answer is yes.

PAM with a one handed quarterstaff would be Jackie Chan hitting you with the staff and sliding it down his hand while doing a spin and hitting you with the other end.

[Grod_The_Giant]

When I ask myself "should a d&d character be able to do that physically" I think...

"Is this something that I could imagine Jackie Chan doing" then the answer is yes.

"Is this something I want to see Jackie Chan doing" then the answer is yes.
A generally good approach

[Rysto]

The problem is that you've taken a feat which was already pretty dubious balance-wise and made it even stronger, with no corresponding power increase for alternate options. I'd like there to be a place for swords in my sword&sorcery game.

[Grod_The_Giant]

The problem is that you've taken a feat which was already pretty dubious balance-wise and made it even stronger, with no corresponding power increase for alternate options. I'd like there to be a place for swords in my sword&sorcery game.
If you want to change something for the sake of balance, do so. Just be honest about why; don't claim it's "for realism."

[DanyBallon]

When I ask myself "should a d&d character be able to do that physically" I think...

"Is this something that I could imagine Jackie Chan doing" then the answer is yes.

"Is this something I want to see Jackie Chan doing" then the answer is yes.

PAM with a one handed quarterstaff would be Jackie Chan hitting you with the staff and sliding it down his hand while doing a spin and hitting you with the other end.

I definately would like to (and could) see Jackie Chan doing PAM with a one handed quarterstaff, but I wouldn't see him doing this while using a shield. :smallwink:

[Plaguescarred]

1) Butt end still deals 1d4 bludgeoning damage from PAM

2) It doesn't matter where it's held so long as you attack with the butt end. Middle, near the bottom it's up to you!

[Klorox]

Er, from Shillelagh?
LMAO. Oops.

[Klorox]

So, the only way to exploit this cheese at level 1 is with a variant human nature cleric or druid, correct? Either of those gives you shillelagh, you're starting with a 16 WIS and that's really the only stat that matters.

[SharkForce]

Oops I was wrong "at-will" is very nice since it's a 1min duration it doens't specify like Magical Secrets though that it's a Bard Spell (Cha) instead of the normal druid (wis) spell though.


why would it? you have a class feature that gives you a spellcasting attribute as a warlock. that attribute is charisma. when you cast a spell that you gained from being a warlock, you have only one class feature that could even possibly govern what spellcasting attribute you use. it isn't a druid spell, because you can't cast druid spells, you can only cast warlock spells, which you gain from warlock class features.

[R.Shackleford]

I definately would like to (and could) see Jackie Chan doing PAM with a one handed quarterstaff, but I wouldn't see him doing this while using a shield. :smallwink:

Why not?

Replace shield with "expensive vase" or "baby" or whatever else is keeping his arm preoccupied and Jackie Chan could totally use PAM with one hand.

JC is just the type to not really use the sword and board *stick and board) method but that doesn't mean he automatically loses his fantasy abilities because his arm is preoccupied.

[the secret fire]

Meh. Jackie Chan movies are entertaining, but they are to a large extent comedies. Does nothing for me in this case.

Which is why this whole debate largely comes down to aesthetics. Some people are fine with the aesthetics of it, while others find it corny. The truth of the matter is that determining the aesthetics of a campaign world is a large part of the DM's job. For me, I try not to shove my aesthetics down the players' throats too much, but when bad aesthetics combine with mechanics which feel a little too powerful...blam.

[R.Shackleford]

Meh. Jackie Chan movies are entertaining, but they are to a large extent comedies. Does nothing for me in this case.

Which is why this whole debate largely comes down to aesthetics. Some people are fine with the aesthetics of it, while others find it corny. The truth of the matter is that determining the aesthetics of a campaign world is a large part of the DM's job. For me, I try not to shove my aesthetics down the players' throats too much, but when bad aesthetics combine with mechanics which feel a little too powerful...blam.

I was laughing the whole time at the LotR/Hobbit movies but they are still fantasy. Of course I was laughing at them and not with them.

The type of movie doesn't matter, fantasy is fantasy. A lot of JC movies fall into the fantasy realm, maybe not medieval fantasy but still fantasy.

[Foxhound438]

Meh. Jackie Chan movies are entertaining, but they are to a large extent comedies. Does nothing for me in this case.

Which is why this whole debate largely comes down to aesthetics. Some people are fine with the aesthetics of it, while others find it corny. The truth of the matter is that determining the aesthetics of a campaign world is a large part of the DM's job. For me, I try not to shove my aesthetics down the players' throats too much, but when bad aesthetics combine with mechanics which feel a little too powerful...blam.

I bring you again to suspension of disbelief. If the aesthetic is "realism", then why are you playing a game with magic and dragons?

[Blue Lantern]

I bring you again to suspension of disbelief. If the aesthetic is "realism", then why are you playing a game with magic and dragons?

Ever heard the quote "You can ask an audience to believe the impossible, but not the improbable."

For many it it easier to accept things that are completely out of reality, like magic and dragon, that thing that are close to reality but just a bit off.

[the secret fire]

I bring you again to suspension of disbelief. If the aesthetic is "realism", then why are you playing a game with magic and dragons?

The aesthetic is: not corny.

Jackie Chan movies are corny. I prefer Bruce Lee, who would have laughed at anyone who suggested he fake a ludicrously impractical fighting style in front of the camera, and then probably kicked that person in the face. I don't see why this is so hard for people to understand. I also don't let people wield ridiculously oversized anime weapons, use arrows to push enemies around at range, etc.

The concept of "realism" in D&D is not the same as actual realism. There is at least a vague explanation for magic in the setting. It is possible to accept that there are vague powers which some people can channel and evoke within certain limits without accepting that perfectly normal people can now start swinging around swords built for giants. It is about internal consistency, about crafting a world where the crunch is in accord with the fluff. What I don't want is a world where the crunch is a random grab-bag of "stuff that sounds cool" thrown together without any attempt at consistency or explanation - ie. 4th edition.

But if you're cool with that, then by all means, enjoy your quarterstaff and shield fighting style.

edit: before anyone corrects me, I'll admit that Fists of Fury is a little corny, especially the part where Bruce kicks the guy through a wall and he makes a Looney Tunes-style human shaped hole in the wall. But it was Bruce's first major film, and I gather he didn't have much say in the choreography at the time.

[Blue Lantern]

snip about Bruce Lee

As someone who studied Jeet Kune Do from people who spent some time training with Dan Inosanto, trust when I say that even if Bruce Lee movie where closer to realistic than those of Jackie Chan, they are still a far cry from real fights.

[the secret fire]

As someone who studied Jeet Kune Do from people who spent some time training with Dan Inosanto, trust when I say that even if Bruce Lee movie where closer to realistic than those of Jackie Chan, they are still a far cry from real fights.

I'm aware of that. I'm also aware of the fact that one guy with a nunchaku is not going to beat up a twenty-strong gang (of street thugs, kung fu students, agents of the creepy guy with the claw hand, etc. - Bruce did this several times in his films) by having each of the gang members come at him one-at-a-time. 5e actually models this scenario better than Lee's films did, seeing as the group can swarm the one, use help actions to grant advantage on attacks, and likely beat him down unless the gap between their power levels is really, really large.

[Socratov]

You are indeed wrong. You get one extra action and 0 extra bonus actions from action surge.

have you got any evidence for this exact reading? By raw the quote wererabbitz plced could be read to grant an additional bonus action.

(quoted again to safe time searching)


Action Surge:
Starting at 2nd level, you can push yourself beyond your
normal limits for a moment. On your turn, you can take
one additional action on top of your regular action and a
possible bonus action.


I can see this going any of the following ways
[list=1]
you can take one additional action, which is on top of your regular action, and include another bonus action[suggesting that if you have an ability that can use a bonus action you can get another bonus action on top of that.
you can take a bonus action, which is on top of your action+possible bonus action
[list]

normally the rule is that you are guaranteed (unless circumstnaces inhibiting it through contition etc.) to be able to use an action, movement and a bonusaction on your turn, during the round (not just on your turn) you can even take a reaction, wether you use them or not. These actions are also not interchangeable (no 'burning' an action for a bonus action, for example). If you have an ability to triggers off a reaction (like an attack of opportunity or the casting of counterspell). The fact that the description specifically mentions a possible bonus action, something you'd otherwaise already havefor certain makes the second interpretation shaky IMO.

That said, what if instead of PAM the character chose to not wear a shield, pick Two Weapon fighting (as a feat) and wielded a dagger on his offhand? He'd have the same number of attacks, get a +1 AC boost, and if choosing the correct fighting style he could even get his Cha on his damage, or even actually just pick a bigger weapon to dual wield with (courtesy of dueal wielding) for a 1-handed weapon like a long sword or rapier for a d8, exchanging +1AC for on average +2 dmg. he could even, if he were so inclined, wield a club for another shillelagh effect needing you to only raise your CHA instead of STR (that is, until past the STR/dex needed for the AC you want because that's fun!)

[ClintACK]

Action Surge:
Starting at 2nd level, you can push yourself beyond your
normal limits for a moment. On your turn, you can take
one additional action on top of your regular action and a
possible bonus action.

I'd parse this as: On your turn, (you can take one additional action) on top of (your regular action and a possible bonus action).

You seem to be reading it as: On your turn, you can take (one additional action on top of your regular action) and a possible bonus action.

I *think* the reason for the "... and a possible bonus action." is that otherwise some people might think/argue that the Action Surge *was* the bonus action for the fighter's turn.

[DanyBallon]

On the action surge thing:

You don't get automatically a bonus action on your turn. You get one only if certain conditions are met.

Wording of action surge says that you can take an additional action on your turn, nothing more.

The part that says "and a possible bonus action" refers that if you meet the prerequisite to get a bonus action, then you get one, but this is independent on the number of actions you can do on your turn.

[R.Shackleford]

have you got any evidence for this exact reading? By raw the quote wererabbitz plced could be read to grant an additional bonus action.


"Action Surge

Starting at 2nd level, you can push yourself beyond your normal limits for a moment. On your turn, you can take one additional action on top of your regular action and a possible bonus action.

Once you use this feature, you must finish a short or long rest before you can use it again. Starting at 17th level, you can use it twice before a rest, but only once on the same turn."

If you read the bolded section, nowhere does it say you gain an additional bonus action.

You gain an additional action on top of your action and any possible bonus actions you may have.

Bonus Actions aren't garuenteed, you have to have a feature or use other actions to gain them which is why it says "possible bonus actions".

There is no way to read this sentence, while using the English language, and say that Action Surge gives you an additional bonus action unless you add or change something to the sentence.

I understand that people want it to give you an additional bonus action and so they see the sentence wrong. But it does not.

[Socratov]

I'd parse this as: On your turn, (you can take one additional action) on top of (your regular action and a possible bonus action).

You seem to be reading it as: On your turn, you can take (one additional action on top of your regular action) and a possible bonus action.

I *think* the reason for the "... and a possible bonus action." is that otherwise some people might think/argue that the Action Surge *was* the bonus action for the fighter's turn.

quite and entirely possible, but without clear punctuation all we have is guesswork and IMO both interpretations are valid until further clarified.

Personally I think it's not such a big deal to allow so and might make multiclassing with rogue more fun. It's not as if it has a lasting effect on DPR and in terms of spike dmaage it won't exactly do all that much...

[DanyBallon]

Bonus Actions aren't garuenteed, you have to have a feature or use other actions to gain them which is why it says "possible bonus actions".

There is no way to read this sentence, while using the English language, and say that Action Surge gives you an additional bonus action unless you add or change something to the sentence.


I guess the confusion comes from earlier editions where there was something similar to 5e bonus action, and that was part of everyone's turn, while it not true anymore in 5e.
Also, the fact that there are so many way to get you a bonus action on your turn, people can get the impression that bonus action work the same as in earlier editions.

[Grod_The_Giant]

I guess the confusion comes from earlier editions where there was something similar to 5e bonus action, and that was part of everyone's turn, while it not true anymore in 5e.
Also, the fact that there are so many way to get you a bonus action on your turn, people can get the impression that bonus action work the same as in earlier editions.
To be fair, the "conditional" bonus action is just poor design, given how consistently they're used. There's no logical reason for it to work the way it does- I don't blame people for being confused.

I still can't see reading Action Surge as granting you a second bonus action, though.

[R.Shackleford]

To be fair, the "conditional" bonus action is just poor design, given how consistently they're used. There's no logical reason for it to work the way it does- I don't blame people for being confused.

I still can't see reading Action Surge as granting you a second bonus action, though.

Agreed on both counts.

I would have preferred a system, and I need to add this to my homebrew in case I haven't already, where the bonus action stuff is just "as part of another action".

"Whenever you take the attack action with a one handed improvised weapon you may attempt to grapple the target."

There is no additional actions needed for this grapple. You make your attacks with your improvised weapon (1, 2, or more) and then grapple one of the targets.

Which is actually how 4e works, though presented differently.

[Grod_The_Giant]

Agreed on both counts.

I would have preferred a system, and I need to add this to my homebrew in case I haven't already, where the bonus action stuff is just "as part of another action".

"Whenever you take the attack action with a one handed improvised weapon you may attempt to grapple the target."

There is no additional actions needed for this grapple. You make your attacks with your improvised weapon (1, 2, or more) and then grapple one of the targets.

Which is actually how 4e works, though presented differently.
But then you have stuff like Cunning Action and Quicken Spell, which you might want to use at different points in your turn at different times. Honestly, I think it would be easier just to say "one action, one bonus action, and 30ft of movement" and be done with it.

[Socratov]

To be fair, the "conditional" bonus action is just poor design, given how consistently they're used. There's no logical reason for it to work the way it does- I don't blame people for being confused.

I still can't see reading Action Surge as granting you a second bonus action, though.


Agreed on both counts.

I would have preferred a system, and I need to add this to my homebrew in case I haven't already, where the bonus action stuff is just "as part of another action".

"Whenever you take the attack action with a one handed improvised weapon you may attempt to grapple the target."

There is no additional actions needed for this grapple. You make your attacks with your improvised weapon (1, 2, or more) and then grapple one of the targets.

Which is actually how 4e works, though presented differently.

well, given the immense number of ways to get uses for bonus actions, and the overall general rule that you can take only one bonus action per turn suggests (at last to me) that a bonus action is part of your turn, if you have a way to use it. The same goes to reactions. Which is exactly why you don't lose your movement, it just becomes 0'. You don't lose your action if inhibited, but you can't spend your actionsin certain ways. You don't recieve a bonus action when you get to use it, you gain the option to use your 1 bonus action you get every turn in a certain way (which ofcourse raises the point of why you can't 'burn' an action for a bonus action to, for example, cast misty step (bonus action) and inspire courage (also a bonus action)). But then again, I equate the bonus action with 3.5's swift action and the reaction with 3.5's immedeate action. In this case the action surge with the possible bonus action would read (at least to me) "if you are able to spend bonus actions you are free to do so for a second time this turn, much like how you get to use a second action this turn".

That said I can understand that if you never played 3.5 that a bonus action is just another action that you can spend on a specific set of things through weapons, class abilities, spells, equipment, feats, etc.

So here it is less a question of how many actions you get, but the real question becomes: "Are bonus action granted through external actors and internally limited to 1, or are bonus actions inherent, limited to 1 and 'spendable' as dictated by external actors?". The former will lead to a conclusion of No, action surge won't grant another bonus action if you have already used one, the latter could lead to a conclusion of Yes, you can take another bonus action if you have the ability to do so. (corollary: if you can't spend your bonus actions the point is moot anyway)

[Saggo]

well, given the immense number of ways to get uses for bonus actions, and the overall general rule that you can take only one bonus action per turn suggests (at last to me) that a bonus action is part of your turn, if you have a way to use it.

Intuitive or not, the book is explicit: "You can take a bonus action only when a special ability, spell, or other feature of the game states that you can do something as a bonus action. You otherwise don’t have a bonus action to take (p189)."

Action Surge doesn't let you do something as a bonus action, so context says that it doesn't grant a bonus action, additional or otherwise.